Whether or not one "calls" it RAW, DNG performs exactly the same functions as the original RAW file, but does so faster and with a smaller footprint. Unless you plan on using CaptureNX or don't have time to convert files, I see no downside to using DNGs.

Wrong. It does not perform exactly the same functions. DNG essentially throws away many in camera decisions: D-Lighting, Picture Control settings, sharpening. If you are only using an Adobe product to process your file that is OK. If you ever want to use software that can use those settings then you are out of luck recovering your original choices.

This whole DNG debate always turns silly. I am surprised Barry P. isn't here yet since it used to apparently be his job to evangelize DNG. Adobe is not some benevolent company that is giving a format to the world. All you have to do is read the license and you will know that all rights are Adobes and anyone else is at Adobe's mercy. In order to process raw files Adobe NEEDED an intermediate format that all RAW files would get converted to. Every other company that process RAW files from multiple vendors has to do the same thing. Adobe was just smart enough to try to get manufacturers to write to it natively which helps Adobe.

I'm not really sure what your issue is with Adobe. I don't believe they are any more or less benevolent than Nikon is. I have never touched picture controls because I'd rather do that in post, but for the vast majority of Nikon RAW shooters, I say majority because most do rely on ACR, I believe DNG is a much better option than NEF.